10 minute read
Features
Why do my relationships keep failing?
ALICIA PRYOR | CONTENT WRITER
Advertisement
Relationships are fundamental to our lives. Whether it be 1. Secure - Self-assured, direct, responsive with partners, friends, or family. The fact is that humans are social creatures, and we need connections to thrive. That is why it is a surprise that no one really teaches us how to navigate relationships besides, perhaps, the people who raise us. Most of the relationships in our lives succeed or fail through trial and error. Figuring out what we do and do not like about others, and perhaps what is right and wrong within our own behaviour. The core elements of romantic relationships are how we perceive ourselves, our partners and most importantly - how we attach to our partners. British psychologist John Bowlby first theorised that the way we attach to our caregivers, dependent on the opportunity for attachment and quality caregiving received as babies, strongly impacts how we form and maintain attachments in our adult relationships. When I could not place this staggering, overwhelming anxiety that told me to immediately leave every time I entered a relationship (or sometimes even before), I felt a sense of ruination. I was destined to be alone forever, living out the rest of my life as a crazy cat lady. But despite feeling this impending sense of doom, I still wanted to figure out what was wrong within myself. Eventually, I discovered that what I had been feeling for years was due to my fearful avoidant attachment style. I felt a wave of relief when I could finally place a name on what I had been enduring for so long. Even though I did not know how to solve my issues just yet, there were resources and solutions to what I had thought was unfixable within me. The four main attachment styles in mainstream psychology are as such: 2. Preoccupied - Self-doubting, anxious, sensitive 3. Dismissive - Self-reliant, avoidant, distant 4. Fearful - Self-sabotaging, unpredictable, isolated Source: Instagram @markconlan It is not impossible for people to become secure even with the most extreme case of insecure attachment styles. There is a vast amount of research on attachment styles spanning more than 40 years of development. With the help of therapy, or more easily accessible online resources (i.e. Thais Gibson on YouTube and the book Attached by Amir Leven and Rachel S. F. Heller), people with insecure attachment styles can better understand what it is that they have, and how to overcome it. The most important steps to healing are to identify, acknowledge and want to change the way we operate in our relationships in a healthy manner. It may feel difficult or even impossible to heal at times, but there is nothing more rewarding than finally overcoming an obstacle in such a crucial component of human life.
The history of the Unofficial Bridgerton Musical and Netflix lawsuit
LAURA BLOOMFIELD | CONTENT WRITER
The Unofficial Bridgerton
Musical, created by Abigail Barlow and Emily Bear, started on TikTok in early 2021 (similar to the Ratatouille musical). Initially, Netflix was excited by the TikTok musical, tweeting that they were “absolutely blown away” by Barlow and Bear’s work. Bridgerton’s cast and author, Julia Quinn, also originally praised the musical. The musical was helpful for the show’s success as it increased its publicity. Barlow and Bear recorded an album for The Unofficial Bridgerton Musical, which ended up winning a Grammy for Best Musical Theatre Album in 2022. However, this moved The Unofficial Bridgerton Musical from a TikTok creation to a profitable business (along with “An Evening with Barlow and Bear” performed at the Underbelly Speigeltent, Leicester Square on 22 November 2021). This a problem for Netflix as Barlow and Bear did not have the intellectual property rights to Bridgerton, which is what led to the lawsuit.
On July 26th 2022, the company Barlow & Bear hosted a sold-out concert at the Kennedy Centre in Washington, D.C. The show featured the National Symphony Orchestra and Broadway performers. Ticket prices went up to $149, increasing the opportunities for monetary gain from The Unofficial Bridgerton Musical. On July 29th 2022, Netflix sued Abigail Barlow and Emily Bear and their company for copyright infringement. The lawsuit stated that Barlow & Bear committed “blatant infringement of intellectual property rights” through The Unofficial Bridgerton Musical, which directly quotes from the television show. The lawsuit caused another in-person performance, which was scheduled for September 20th 2022 at the Royal Albert Hall, to be cancelled.
The lawsuit stated that “the copyright and trademark laws do not allow Barlow & Bear to appropriate others” creative work and goodwill to benefit themselves. Originally, Barlow and Bear were going to have an in-person charity show, which Netflix was aware of. Unlike the other in-person shows this would not have benefited them monetarily. A charity show would have also been similar to the charity performance that the Ratatouille musical did.
In the lawsuit, it appears that Barlow and Bear were offered the chance to negotiate a license for The Unofficial Bridgerton Musical that would allow them to have live performances. However, the license was declined. By pursuing with their in-person shows, Netflix said it “threatens” its plans to expand the Bridgerton Experience in the UK. Hence by performing their musical in-person, Barlow and Bear reduced Netflix’s profit from their official Bridgerton events. On September 23rd 2022, the lawsuit was closed “with prejudice”, meaning that Netflix cannot refile the lawsuit. A reason has not been given for why the lawsuit was dropped. Over lockdown, other musicals were created on TikTok, such as the Ratatouille musical. However, the difference between the Ratatouille musical and The Unofficial Bridgerton Musical is that the former did not pursue monetary gain - it was more a collaborative and fun lockdown pastime. Demonstrating the dangers faced by Barlow and Bear faced as they progressed beyond the safety of TikTok into the uncertainty of the commercial world.
Source: barlowandbear.com
KATHERINA HOI | CONTENT WRITER
Recently, a pair of Jeffrey Dahmer’s glasses have been sold for over £100,000 pounds. This comes after the recent release of the Netflix series Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story. And this is not the only thing the website “Cult Collectibles” sells of Dahmer’s either. One featured product is Dahmer’s kindergarten school project selling for about £4,000. There is an entire subculture based on selling and purchasing items related to true crime. True crime has become a commodity. A focus on the sensational details of the crime and killer with a significant lack of attention towards the actual victims. This is the very case with Monster, wherein the focus is not on the victims themselves, but on a bingeable version of crimes committed. The site “Cult Collectables”, much like the series, does very little for the actual victims of the heinous crime, rather it profits off them. None of the money made on the site goes to the victims. rovided no support for Dahmer’s victims and their families. This is a symptom of a much larger problem of the commodification of trauma and victims. In the same week, Netflix also released a biopic called Blonde, which like Monster, has been called exploitative, shocking and, as Jack King writes for GQ, “little more than sluggish torture porn”.
Blonde tries to tell the story of Marilyn Monroe, but it loses itself in the fictionalised events it attempts to pass for truth. Like with Monster, in an attempt to entertain, the real horrors and stories of the victims have been lost.
The promotion for this series seemed more akin to fictional series than documentaries. With Evan Peters playing the lead (touching American Horror Story fans) his cult following will worship him in any role, even if it is Dahmer.
Already audiences have taken to social media to post selfies with promotional posters with “#Dahmer”. The serial killer who has ruined dozens of lives is being turned into a trend and a, very likely, Halloween costume. The series itself has been criticised by the families of the victims. Rita Isbell, sister of Dahmer’s victim Errol Lindsey, states that she was never contacted by the show in her Insider article. Monster was upsetting for Isbell, stating “this show is about Netflix trying to get paid”. The dramatization of Dahmer’s crimes blurs the lines between entertainment and education.
The series itself appears now in the Trending section of Netflix, right next to Heartbreak High and Gilmore Girls. In a series too close to fiction, a level of empathy and understanding has been sacrificed in favour of a cash grab. It is not an issue of enjoying true crime, it is an issue of companies profiting off a story that does not belong to them but instead belongs to the victims.
Are these apes not bored enough?
DANIEL PEPIN | FEATURES EDITOR
Source: @damienhirst, Instagram
Iam sorry to have to remind you, but NFT’s are still a thing. It is true that the public view on non-fungible tokens has drastically changed from when they first took the internet by storm in 2021 – popularised with the Bored Ape Yacht Club. They are now seen as a bad joke and a symbol of the “crypto-bro’s” fragile ego. However, the form of digital art has persevered and perverted like an oily stain on a white shirt. Turner prize-winning Artist Damien Hirst is known for his divisiveness and controversy within the art industry. Making a name for himself in the midnineties and going to be a source of heated debate due to his provocative artwork such as a dead shark floating in formaldehyde and For the Love of God, a diamond-encrusted 18th-century human skull. Perhaps it should come as no surprise then, that Hirst has attached himself to the NFT craze in a scandalous way. In 2021, he painted a new collection of 10,000 pieces entitled The Currency with every single piece having a digital NFT counterpart. When these artworks, many of which bore Hirst’s iconic dotted patterns, came on sale the purchaser was made to choose whether they wanted the physical copy or the NFT. This choice came as a price. Hirst promised that he would burn the physical version of every NFT copy sold. 4,851 pieces were chosen to be NFT’s. Damien Hirst is burning nearly 5,000 pieces of irreplaceable art. Hirst has come to his own defence on Instagram and claims that he is not “burning millions of dollars of art” and is actually transferring the value of the pieces to the NFT’s once the art is burnt. This is extremely questionable logic. NFT’s are already heralded as the death of art by many people so it is a swift kick in the teeth to see them not only defended but promoted by a famous artist. A writer would not defend book burning. It is everything they stand against as NFT’s are to the true meaning of art. Defined by Oxford Languages as “human creative skill and imagination, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power”. Where is the emotion in a collection of pixels on a screen? Where can one find imagination and passion in that cold, blue light? Not to mention the obscene waste of money. Hirst’s decision to lean into a dying trend calls into question his authenticity as many believe this to be a publicity stunt or cash grab. There is no doubt that NFT’s are a fad that is rapidly losing steam. The cryptothemed restaurant Bored and Hungry accepted cryptocurrency upon opening earlier this year yet no longer does due to their volatility after popularity crashes. The ego-stroking mad world of crypto and NFT’s is, thankfully, declining yet it is leaving devastating impacts on the art world on its way out.
